Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719326 times)

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #495 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:58:59 AM »

Quote from: fletcher on January 23, 2014, 04:04:22 AM

..............................................................
HER & RAR have worked the crowd - so far that is as far as the story for public consumption goes.

Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight. I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model. A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like, lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr. Radian input travel 1mtr.
It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)
If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever fixed travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. An input using a fixed limited volume of fluid and pressure (acting as output on down stroke)
2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures
4.. Pressure vs lift force is non-linear (asymmetry)
5.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor
6.. Single input for all the layers using fluid volume & pressure on one side (reversible)
7.. Aggregated output with Force over Distance (reversible

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.
Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?
Is it really impossible ? Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new. http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium. The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums.

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor. Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim. In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process. These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset

MarkE · « **Reply #496 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:12:12 AM »

Grimer, I am very interested in science. Science is based on observation. The dark video shows a device that behaves as a motor does, ergo it looks like a motor. If you think that video shows something else, then you are free to express your hypothesis and state your observations that support that hypothesis. Then anyone could try to test that hypothesis against existing information, or by experiment.

While you are thinking about that, then maybe you would like to explain in this diagram of yours, where you indicate you "ersatz gravity" at the circular bob apogee. You have previously stated that "ersatz gravity" is centrifugal force. Centrifugal force of a rotating object acts radially. The radial force on a circular pendulum arm at apogee is zero. So, why is it that with zero radial force you are indicating a non-zero "ersatz gravity" force?

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/dlattach/attach/132106/image//

minnie · « **Reply #497 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:06:14 AM »

Hi,
according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
John

MarkE · « **Reply #498 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 07:58:59 AM

Fletcher & MarkE,
You have been busy overnight. I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.

Because by all available observation it is not possible, and by current physical theory it is not possible. If anyone would like to change that, they need to show a cheat on the relevant physical theory, or build a working device.

Quote

Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects. Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
The importance should be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model. A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

I disagree. An OU device is a hypothetical construct that if it is real can be proven like anything else. The proof requires evidence. In the case of OU, physical laws that embody our best interpretation of observations to date make OU a very tough proposition. The evidence must therefore be very strong.

Quote

Some more insight on Wayne Travis idea
The basic device
How could a OU idea look like, lets take a simple lever as an example,
The output side of the fulcrum is 5mtr and the other side is also 5mtr. Radian input travel 1mtr.

Do you mean vertical travel at one end, or do you mean angular travel of 1 radian?

Quote

It is a balance seesaw, equal leverage on both sides with equal travel. The lever effect is bi-directional

I agree.

Quote

The idea
If we change the input lever length, so would the output force and the input travel distance (keeping the same output travel)

So far so good, Ein = Eout.

Quote

If we could construct a lever that had a variable input length without impacting the arc angle or input travel distance, that would provide an ability break a direct relationship with the output. Possible ?? Lets for a moment say we can.

The motion and ratio of forces on a lever are defined: S1 * F1 = S2 * F2. Anything else is not a lever. It is fine to hypothesize such a machine but as soon as you do you can no longer rely on the the properties of a lever for further analysis.

Quote

How would we use that lever, what is the final objective?
Having always the same travel distance (in & output) with this magic lever, we could choose to use a long lever as input >> Great lifting power at the output
We could use a short lever when we reverse the cycle, input becomes output >> That initial weight would return more than we inputted initially (on assumption that the short lever can deliver that over the same lift distance)

When one invokes magic, one can declare any behavior that one desires.

Quote

How would a magic lever look like.
The lever travel distance requirement for various desired lever lengths is obvious key to break the energy relationship
Wayne does this using a multi-layer lever.

You have defined a construct with magic properties and used those magic properties to explain HER's supposed device. You could rephrase this as: "Wayne uses magic."

Quote

What does the multi-layer provide,
1.. A common input/output using a set limited volume of fluid and pressure

Each successive gas layer results in a combined gas spring that exhibits greater and greater distance compliance per unit pressure.

Quote

2.. Several integral lift surfaces
3.. The ability to manipulate sub-pressures

More properly, the pressures fall out from the ratios used in strict accordance with 2000 year old hydrostatics.

Quote

4.. Input distance always equals output distance regardless of leverage factor

So what we are dealing with is a controlled relationship of pressure verses lift area.

In a magic machine one can define arbitrary relationships. In a real machine the relationships are limited by the actual behavior of nature.

Quote

Force= pressure x area
>> up stroke >> Large area x pressure= output is large lift force
>> down stroke >> Small area x pressure= output is high pressure

At this point you will say that is impossible ?

You have invoked magic to describe your mythical machine. In a magic world that mythical machine might work. In the real world a machine with the properties claimed cannot exist. Just as the operating principles of a lever cannot be changed by fiat in the real world, neither can the principles of hydrostatics be waved away by declaration.

Quote

Is it really impossible ? Check out Wayne multi-layer hydro lever, you will get far if you have the desire and persistence to learn something new. http://www.overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/#.Ut_j8_vfrUI
The hydro lever is only one form on the idea in one specific medium. The basic idea can take on many different shapes in various mediums.

OU is never simple like tying a few magnets to a rotor. Never expect that nature is easily fooled and will lie down at your whim. In the final execution of the idea, there is a fair amount of inventive property involved to achieve reasonable economical outputs. I call it interference with the natural process, a requirement for any OU process. These were the details that Wayne was reluctant to reveal on a public forum, for good understandable reasons (annoying TK to the limit, together with some others HiFlyers, destroying the communication for others)

PS: I will not reply or comment on opinions

Regards, Red_Sunset

The citation states that he has a combination pneumatic / hydraulic machine that has a series multiple gas and liquid sections each section with a different area. He says that he realizes different forces through the use of common hydrostatics by changing the areas of successive sections. That is all fine and well. Now, let us examine what those statements mean in the real world:

Force can be multiplied by taking advantage of the fact that under static conditions the pressure in a volume is uniform. If we construct an incompressible fluid filled device that has a small diameter piston at one end of area A1, and a large diameter piston at the other end of area A2, then we have our analogue of a lever, and:

Relative force: F2/F1 = A2/A1
Relative displacement: dS2/dS1 = A1/A2

We can couple multiple such devices together and the net result is:

Relative force: Fn/F1 = An/A1
Relative displacement: dSn/dS1 = A1/An

So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy: the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output. There is no clever cheat on this. It is yet another result of conservation of energy. Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will. The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.

The effect of putting air pockets between these various hydraulic sections is to introduce gas springs that compress under pressure storing energy, and reducing motion at the output side of the machine compared to coupling sections with incompressible elements.

Marsing · « **Reply #499 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:25:33 AM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 07:58:59 AM

=================================================================================
I think I can see the reasons why Bessler's secret hasn't been discovered yet.
Why ? The general reasoning appears as a negative reasoning (look at the last posts). To ascertain and validate a OU idea, most people think they need to disprove that OU can exist, failing that they attack the commercial or motivational aspects.
Believe it or not, a positive reasoning outlook makes a greater difference than you think on your perception and path of reasoning.
A beneficial outlook could be "why does he think it possibly could be OU", a reasoning that separates logic analysis from the physical model.

A faulty model does not pre-empt the idea as invalid.

===============================================================================

Regards, Red_Sunset

TinselKoala · « **Reply #500 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:31:34 AM »

Quote from: Grimer on January 23, 2014, 07:56:36 AM

I say, look at this chaps.

TinselKoala
Hero Member
Posts: 8038 (3.975 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 10-07-2008, 22:24:14

orbut 3000
Jr. Member
Posts: 66 (0.033 per day)Age:N/A
Date Registered: 16-07-2008, 23:06:28

Really TalK, I'm surprised at you.

You should be more careful when you're
registering your sleeper agents to give
them a better legend than that.

Didn't your mummy ever tell you that
its OK to smoke those cigarettes but
you should never inhale.

Greek atmosphere LOL - wonderful.

You must be really desperate to steer
the thread away from the WhipMag.

Now your stupidity has lost you one
of your deep cover agents.

That earns a ROFL.

Frank.... your classic paranoia is showing.

I suggest upping your Haldol to 10 mg p.o. BID, to suppress the delusional thinking you have been exhibiting lately.

You have no evidence for your silly claim that I have "sock puppets" or any other accounts on this forum. You have, however, been presenting solid evidence for your mental illness, over the past several weeks.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #501 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:39:40 AM »

Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 09:06:14 AM

Hi,
according to Sunset "if you want to know about asymmetry ask Wayne Travis".
I bet if you asked his investors' they'd know. Asymmetry in their bank balances!
I think the Webby prize was an attempt to filch ideas. When Travis realised the
thing wouldn't work he was prepared to try anything.
I wish the Travis machine had worked as intended and new scientific facts had
been established but at the present time it doesn't look too good.
John

It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.

Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.

Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.

MarkE · « **Reply #502 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:40:51 AM »

Marsing, it is true that a faulty model makes bad predictions, sooner or later. An example would be the CoE violating lever that Red_Sunset proposed as an analogy for HER's claims. Models that represent observations past faithfully and make reliable predictions of observations that result from specified conditions are useful. When it comes to proposed models that allow for working gravity wheels and HER's claims, those models fail against past observations.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #503 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:46:36 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 09:12:15 AM

........................................................................
So just as with a single lever we can realize force gain, but energy: the integral of force * dS is the same at the input as it is at the output. There is no clever cheat on this. It is yet another result of conservation of energy. Force and distance we can manipulate individually at will. The integral product of F*dS is energy, and it is conserved.
............................................................

MarkE,

Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post. No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.

Regards, Red_Sunset

MarkE · « **Reply #504 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:47:43 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 09:39:40 AM

It was also an attempt to buy loyalty. At around the same time I received PMs from Travis where he said he and his "team" were considering hiring.... ME. In order to get me to sign an NDA and STFU, of course.

Remember the further "competitions" of Travis? The "competition" to produce a table-top, self-running water pump? Which I did, of course. My TinselZed Heron's Fountain fulfils the letter of the requirements Travis listed for that "competition". But alas..... it turns out, just like with Sterling, Mylow and my reproduction of that...... that Travis wanted an OU self running water pump. So he didn't acknowledge my clear victory.

Funny, though.... nobody provided Travis with an OU self-running water pump! After all these years, after Red_Sunset's clear explanations, after all those simulations, after the "inner circle" with their secret conclaves..... nobody can demonstrate any OU using Travis's ideas or his apparatus or even in the simulations when they are properly done.

If that was Wayne's intent it would have been a cute trick had it worked.
Do you know of anywhere that HER stated what principle they were supposedly leveraging to generate surplus energy?

MarkE · « **Reply #505 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:53:19 AM »

Quote from: Red_Sunset on January 23, 2014, 10:46:36 AM

MarkE,

Thanks for taking "the mickey" out of my post. No problem, I can appreciate the humor that came along with making your viewpoint
It is clear that you have stuck to the superficial view of the design and took the angle of "disproving OU" rather than "trying to figure out the inventors angle".
That is fine, although I would recommend you revisit the quoted paragraph above.

Regards, Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day. The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass. I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine. Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #506 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:14:09 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 10:53:19 AM

Red_Sunset I trust that you agree that we can manipulate force or distance with machines such as: levers, pulleys, and hydraulic pistons, since we do that millions of times each and every day. The thing that we seem to be unable to do is violate Conservation of Energy / Mass. I would love to hear your take from the "inventors point of view" where HER or anyone else may get more energy out than in with any single element or any collection of elements in their machine. Please explain the operating principle that supposedly would allow their machinery to delivery endless energy.

MarkE
Reading fast with comprehension and understand at the same time shaded context relationships is an art.
The purpose of my post #499 was, "explaining at a high level, the operating principle of that lever"
You wouldn't want me to repeat the detailed workings with pictures of all that Wayne described in his topic line, would you ?
I hate duplication, it is all there, read it and see what he did to overcome the quoted limitation.
Do not be "pre-conceived" where the energy is going to come from.
Milking is the best way to describe it. You take part but you don't kill the cow

Maybe Minnie can help you and teach you the milking part !!

Red_Sunset

minnie · « **Reply #507 on:** January 23, 2014, 11:39:01 AM »

Sunset,
Consider the facts.
Grravity very weak.
Hydraulic lever very inefficient
No chance of any decent operating speed.
Nearly everything that goes on occurs in nature. From fusion to a brain.
Lets look for a natural gravity driven process, a glacier, huge weight and
snail's pace.
Consider a diesel driven alternator, engine is huge when compared to the
size of the alternator.
Gravity/water bad place to start from.
John.

Red_Sunset · « **Reply #508 on:** January 23, 2014, 12:14:11 PM »

Quote from: minnie on January 23, 2014, 11:39:01 AM

.............................................................
Gravity/water bad place to start from. John.

Hi John,
You are correct, although the difference is that you are stating a practical consideration and previous communication is addressing a theoretical process.
You might enjoy this fable, works good to put the little ones to sleep

A FABLE - NEVER LOOK A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH

Once upon a time in a far away country, close to a big forest and in the shadow of the castle. There lived an old man with many sheep who was in possession of a 25kg gold bar that he had discovered buried in the field.
On a nice sunny morning he decided to do a good deed by sharing this treasure, by making a poor fellow wealthy. So out of the goodness of his heart he decided to give away this 25kg gold bar to the first needed poor man he would encounter that morning.

He told the first poor fellow he encountered that morning that all his wishes would come true and that he didn’t have to worry ever again about where his next meal would come from. The poor fellow was surprised at the goodness shown to him by the old man and became immediately suspicious. His suspicion turned into questioning the motivation of old man for giving this big gold bar away. So he started to question the old man aggressively,
How do I know if it is really gold?
How do I know if it is solid gold?
Can you prove that it is gold?
Can you prove that it is solid gold?
The reason that you give it to me (for free) can only mean that it is not gold. I am not going to take your gold until you satisfy all my requests, if you don’t you must be a liar and a cheat.

The old man was utterly surprised and taken aback with the response to his good intended gesture. The old man replied that he didn’t expect anything in return for his gift, neither does he put down any conditions for giving away this gold. He suggested that the poor man himself could let the goldsmith test the gold to assure himself that is was real and put his mind at ease.

The poor man was un-moving adamant that the old man should satisfy his demands and then he walked away scolding the old man for being a cheat and liar for not proving that the gold was real. That he was trying to hand him fake gold. On his way home he told everybody he encountered how the old man was trying to cheat him.

A few weeks later did the old man hear that the poor man had died from starvation. The old man returned with great disappointment to his house and buried the gold bar in the garden where it remained until today.

Red_Sunset

minnie · « **Reply #509 on:** January 23, 2014, 12:48:27 PM »

Oh dear Sunset,
trouble is you're digging to find a gold bar in the most unlikely place.
Many people have scanned your chosen site with the most up-to-date equipment and
there's nothing there.
Do some prospecting of your own, find somewhere that you're in with a chance.
The laws that are known are quite robust, if they weren't you couldn't count on anything,
simply, things just wouldn't work.
John.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel (Read 719326 times)

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Marsing

Announcement

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

TinselKoala

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Announcement

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

MarkE

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

Red_Sunset

Re: Big try at gravity wheel

minnie

Re: Big try at gravity wheel